Lycopolitan (or Lyco-Diospolitan or Subakhmimic)

[Editorial note: [...] indicates use of Coptic text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.]
(CE:A151b-A159b)
LYCOPOLITAN (OR LYCO-DIOSPOLITAN OR SUBAKHMIMIC). The traditional view of the “Lycopolitan dialect” (also called “Subakhmimic”) has become increasingly disputed in recent years, and the question arose if Lycopolitan in fact existed as a distinct dialect.
1. Research History and Problems
1.1 Attempted Definition. A group of Coptic subdialects (or, better, dialects) is usually classed together as Lycopolitan or Lyco- Diospolitan (siglum L or, in earlier years and even sometimes today, A2) or Subakhmimic (more rarely and in former times Asyutic). Each Coptic (sub)dialect is composed of a number of individual texts (see IDIOLECT) and groups of texts whose uniform designation (linguistically and in terms of dialectal geography; see GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL) seems somewhat difficult. The entire group of L (sub)dialects and connected idiolects can justifiably be given a collective description only in terms of the linguistic center stretching from Qaw to Asyut (Lycopolis), with various possible extensions to the south and north, and in terms of the linguistic traits that place L among the dialects of Upper Egypt but that both as a whole and in relation to their distribution cannot be assigned either to Akhmimic (A) or to Sahidic (S). Furthermore, because of diversification and subdivision within L, it cannot be described as a “neutral” dialect.
1.2 Unity or Diversity of L. The original assumption of relative uniformity of L (or A2) has been called into question by the increasing number of texts, some of which await publication. The first textual witness to become known was the Acta Pauli (AP. Heid.), which Carl Schmidt published from the Heidelberg Papyrus Collection (1904 and a further folio in 1909). In 1924 Sir Herbert Thompson published extensive fragments of St. John’s Gospel in a dialect very close to the AP. Heid. but showing some characteristic peculiarities. In the same year, a letter of the Meletian archives (Crum, in Bell, 1924, no. 1921), the sole nonliterary text thus far known in L, was edited and was considered by the editors as belonging to “the later type of Achmimic [Acta Pauli].” Since 1933 the comprehensive corpus of Coptic-Manichaean texts from Madinat Madi has become known and has been published to a great extent. This was followed in 1945 by the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, of which the codices I, X, and XI once again reveal a new variety of Subakhmimic. Publication began in 1956 with the Gospel of Truth (Evangelium Veritatis) from Codex I. While publication of the Nag Hammadi finds has almost been completed, a wide range of Coptic Manichaean texts is still unpublished. Fragments outside the Nag Hammadi library, but belonging to it in content, were published in 1975; the Sahidic parallel version to these is in Nag Hammadi Codex II, 5. In 1978 fragments of the Letter to Philemon and of Hebrews from the Sir Herbert Thompson Collection (now in Cambridge University library) were published (but these are peculiar in their dialect and seem to be wrongly described as Subakhmimic). One text from the Sir Chester Beatty Collection in Dublin (parts of the Gospel of John) and one from the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana in Geneva (parts of the Acta Pauli, or AP. Bod.) are still unpublished. These two texts are not identical either codicologically or linguistically with the texts published by Sir Herbert Thompson and Carl Schmidt.
1.3 Texts and Editions. The L texts now known are almost without exception literary and belong to various categories.
1.3.1. Biblical texts:
JoL = Gospel of John, London manuscript (Thompson, 1924). Provenance: Qaw, fourth century.
JoD = fragments from the Gospel of John (10:18-11:43), Dublin manuscript (unpublished). Transcript: R. Kasser. End of the third century.
Yet a little different from every (sub)dialect of L (i.e. L4, L5, or L6, see below) and not too far from M and V is the dialect of the following fragments of the Pauline Epistles (ed. Bellet, 1978, pp. 45-47; perhaps provenance Suhaj [Dayr al-Abiad], end of fifth century; see Funk, 1986, and Kasser, 1986):
Hbr = fragment of Hebrews (Heb. 5:5-9, 11-14).
Phm = fragment of Philemon (Phlm. 6:15-16).
The language of Hbr and Phm is not taken into account here.
1.3.2. Apocrypha:
AP. Heid. Acta Pauli manuscript in Heidelberg (Schmidt, 1904, 1909). Source: Akhmim antique dealer; perhaps from Edfu, fifth century.
AP. Bod. = Acta Pauli manuscript fragments in Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Geneva (unpublished). Incomplete transcript: R. Kasser. Provenance: east of Nag Hammadi (but not with Nag Hammadi library or near Dishna), fourth century.
1.3.3. Coptic Manichaean texts:
ManiH = Manichaean Homilies (Polotsky, 1934). Provenance: Madinat Madi, in the Fayyum (but perhaps from Lycopolis[?]; see 1.4), fifth century.
ManiK = Manichaean Kephalaia (Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940; Böhlig, 1966). Provenance: same as for ManiH, fourth-fifth century.
ManiP = Manichaean Psalter (Allberry, 1938). Provenance: same as for ManiH, fourth—fifth century.
1.3.4. Coptic Gnostic texts:
With one exception (OW; see below) all these texts are Nag Hammadi texts (NagH), so called because they were discovered east of Nag Hammadi but not in the same place as AP. Bod: Their numeration follows that of the Nag Hammadi codices and the sequence of the individual tractates in each codex:
1,1 = Prayer of the Apostle Paul (Kasser et al., 1975b; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century.
1,2 or EpJac = Apocryphal Letter of James (Malinine et al., 1968; Kirchner, 1977; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century.
1,3 or EV = Gospel of Truth (Malinine et al., 1956 and 1961; Till, 1959; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century.
1,4 or Rheg = Tractate on the Resurrection or Letter of Rheginos (Malinine et al., 1963; Layton, 1979; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century.
1,5 or Trip. = Tripartite Tractate (Kasser et al., 1973a, 1975a, and 1975b; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century. The folio with the Prayer of the Apostle Paul later turned out to be a flyleaf of Codex I and is now reckoned as NagH 1,1. The language of Trip. is taken into account here only with regard to morphology, not orthography and phonemics, as it is clearly a unique phenomenon (wild orthography, oscillation between S and L, a series of syntactical errors that are not only irregularities or exceptions) and is perhaps not the work of someone whose mother tongue was Coptic.
X,1 or Mar = Marsanes (Pearson, 1981). Fourth century.
XI, 1 or Inter = Interpretation of Gnosis, pp. 1-32. Copied by W.-P. Funk. Fourth century.
XI, 2 or Exp = Valentinian Exposition, pp. 33-39. Copied by W.-P. Funk. Fourth century.
Appendix = five Valentinian prayers, pp. 40-44.
RhInEx = collective designation for Rheg, Inter, and Exp (NagH I, 4-XI,1.2.).
OW = On the Origin of the World (Oeyen, 1975). Provenance: unknown. According to Oeyen (p. 134) the London fragment shows an older stage in the development of the text than the Sahidic version of NagH 11,5, but this does not allow one to draw any direct conclusions as to the age of the manuscript, which Kenyon (in Crum, 1905, no. 522) puts in the fourth century.
1.3.5. Nonliterary texts:
Mel = Letter of the Meletian Archive, no. 1921 (Crum, in Bell, 1924, pp. 94-97). Provenance: antique trade; approx. 330-340 AD.
Note that there is still a number of texts that are closely related linguistically to the L texts but use the grapheme [...] for /x/; for this reason, they were previously—and wrongly—described as “Akhmimic” or “Akhmimic with Sahidic influences” because they use this [...] only in part, as A does. These preliminary stages (to some extent) in the development of L (Kasser, 1979 and 1982a) are dealt with under DIALECT i (with its subdialects, especially i7; see also Funk, 1987).
1.4 Date, Place of Discovery, and Place of Origin. The L texts for the most part date from the fourth and fifth centuries (Nag Hammadi and JoL, fourth century; ManiK and ManiP, fourth-fifth centuries; ManiH and AP. Heid., fifth century). On the other hand, the unpublished Gospel of John in Dublin (JoD) seems to be much earlier, even from the end of the third century. It is interesting to see that the witnesses of L are written on papyrus, whereas the fragments with the Pauline Epistles (Hbr and Phm), which are to be excluded from L for linguistic reasons, are written on parchment.
In some cases (Nag Hammadi and Mani texts, and JoL), the place of discovery is certain, but Crum’s dictum is to be kept in mind: “Place of finding is not necessarily place of origin.” The Mani texts were discovered in Madinat Madi, a place where the L-dialect never had been spoken. Rather, the place of origin of the Coptic Manichaean texts seems to have been Lycopolis (Asyut). For a long time it was regarded as a hiding place for the Manichaean “heresy” (Schmidt and Polotsky, 1933, pp. 12-14). In the case of JoL, there is no compelling reason why the place of discovery should not be considered the same as the place of origin (Qaw/Antaiopolis). As the Nag Hammadi Library resulted from the purposeful collection of various texts, the place of origin of the L texts of Nag Hammadi is not guaranteed. As they, however, represent a different type of L from Mani and JoL, they should be placed further south.
After the fifth century no textual witness of L is attested, and one may conclude that by that time L had gone out of use as a literary language.
1.5. Descriptions of Dialect and Geographical Location. The alternating descriptions of “dialect” L throw light on the history of the problem of L and on Coptic dialectology as a whole. Carl Schmidt, the editor of AP. Heid., characterized the dialect of this manuscript as “a dialect related to the Akhmimic texts.” Its consonants are consistently identical with those of the Sahidic, while the vowels show the peculiarities of Akhmimic (Schmidt, 1904, p. 14). Rosch (1909) interpreted this observation to the effect that the AP. Heid. represented the transitional stage from the (older) Akhmimic to the (later) Sahidic (“late” or “new” Akhmimic; similarly, Crum, in Bell, 1924, p. 94, wrote of “the younger type of Achmimic” with regard to the Meletian letter no. 1921). H. Thompson grouped the dialects of AP. Heid. and JoL under the designation “sub-achmimic,” which established itself subsequently (JoL, p. xx). He subscribed to Schmidt’s view that Subakhmimic stood between Akhmimic and Sahidic, but he raised the fundamental question whether that intermediate position should be interpreted in terms of chronology or dialectal geography. Chaîne (1934) preferred the geographical view, describing the dialect as “Assiutic” (Asyutic, siglum A2). The view that Akhmimic was replaced by Sahidic by way of Subakhmimic had already been dismissed by Till (1928, p. 3), who said that A, A2, and S had “basically come into being independently of each other… and [had been] spoken at an earlier period simultaneously, and alongside each other, in various districts of Upper Egypt.” Nevertheless, the term “Subakhmimic” was retained (Till, passim; Schmidt and Polotsky, 1933; Worrell, 1934; Kahle, 1954; and even Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. 1a).
Worrell (1934, pp. 63-74, map p. 65, region V), assumed that the region of Pbow in the south as far as the al-Ashmunayn-Antinoe line in the north was the area in which A and A2 spread, but rejected the idea of a more circumscribed localization. Kahle (1954, pp. 206ff.) placed A2 between Akhmimic and MESOKEMIC, or Middle Egyptian, and considered the region from Abydos to al-Ashmunayn to be the original area in which A2 spread (basically in agreement with Worrell). He envisaged for the first time a grouping within A2 on a broader textual basis, leading to three main groups: (1) JoL, AP. Heid, Mel, OW (Kahle partly other sigla: OW = BM522; Mel = J. & C. 1921); (2) the Mani texts; and (3) the Nag Hammadi texts (still unpublished at the time and not taken further into account by Kahle). A2-Mani was, according to him, characterized by Akhmimic influences, while A2-AP. Heid. and A2-JoL represented “much more truly the ancient Subachmimic” (p. 219). Polotsky (in Schmidt and Polotsky, 1933, p. 11) had already noted that the Manichaean A2 was closest to the Akhmimic and also drew attention to agreements of Mani-JoL against AP. Heid. These observations were not taken into account by Kahle. Although Kahle’s first main group cannot stand up to scrutiny, one is nevertheless indebted to him for many fine individual observations on A2.
According to Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. 1a, p. 4, sec. 5), A2 was spoken in a region stretching from Akhmim-Eshqaw in the south to al-Ashmunayn-Antinoe in the north with Asyut (Lycopolis) as center. As against Kable, it may be regarded as a backward step that A2 is treated by Vergote as a dialectal unity. From Worrell to Vergote, there is agreement that the al-Ashmunayn-Antinoe line is the northern frontier while the frontier for expansion southward remains open, so to speak.
Recognition that A2 is an independent “dialect” in relation to A and S is contradictory to the still rather widely current description of the dialect as “Subakhmimic,” which, like the siglum A2, tends to lead one to assume a subdialect or collateral dialect of Akhmimic, or A, even if the terminology is only used conventionally. Hence, in a series of publications since 1972, Kasser has proposed instead of “Subakhmimic” the dialectal designation “Lycopolitan” (L), to correspond to the linguistic center of this dialect, or, more exactly, of an important branch of this dialect (see especially Kasser, 1982b and 1984). This description adapts a variant of Chaîne’s “Assiutic” and has the advantage that the siglum consists of just one sign, corresponding to the signs of the other main dialects of Coptic. For a rather long time, various indices were used to designate the individual branches or types of L. Since 1986, however, a general agreement has been reached among Coptologists. Now numerical indices are preferred: thus, L4 rather than L-Mani, L5 rather than L-JoL, L6 rather than L-NagH (see also LYCO-DIOSPOLITAN).
Far more important is the question of the particular type of L to which the textual witnesses can be allotted, the more so since practically every manuscript exhibits peculiarities and even inconsistencies, as L in fact is not a thoroughly standardized dialect in any of its branches. The individual groups will be denoted below in accordance with their main characteristics.
1.6 Means of Dialectal Subdivision. Like the Coptic dialects in general, the individual representatives and branches of L (as an L group) are also mainly distinguished from each other phonetically (insofar as this can be recognized from the orthography) and in specific areas of morphology. Except for Funk (1985), where some primary elements of the kind are already shown, there have been until now no available investigations for differences in the lexical and syntactical field (see, however, DIALECTS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC and AKHMIMIC). These L branches are designated as follows:
L4 (or L-Mani) (all Mani texts)
L5 (or L-JoL) (JoL, JoD and AP. Bod.)
L6 (or L-NagH) (all Nag Hammadi L texts, and also AP. Heid)
2. The Phonemic Inventory of Lycopolitan
As usual, consonants and vowels will be treated separately.
2.1 Consonants. The L consonantal phonemes and graphemes (according to Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. 1a, p. 13) are those of most Coptic dialects and therefore also of S, M, W, V, and F (apart from F7) (see Table 1). There are sixteen graphemes matching the seventeen consonantal phonemes of Lycopolitan. The laryngeal stop phoneme /’/ has no sign of its own but is expressed, or is recognizable, by the break in the vowels (e.g., [...], to place him or it), as in S (with pS) and also A, as in most of the F branches.
The use of some of these consonants, especially [...] and [...], is indicative of a difference within the L dialect (see 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2.1).
2.2 Vowels. A comprehensive description of the vowel phonemes of Lycopolitan can be found in Vergote, 1973-1983 (Vol. la, p. 41). The vowel indicators of Lycopolitan are important because they often show and clarify relationships with A and deviations from, on the one hand, M, F, etc. and, on the other, S, B, etc. (see Till, 1961, pp. 8-11; Kasser 1982b, p. 58) and because they emphasize differences within L and so are indispensable in defining L4, L5, and L6, as the case may be.
[See PDF version of this article for TABLE 1. Consonantal Phonemes and Graphemes]
2.3 Indicators of Differences Within Dialect L. These differential markers between L4, L5, and L6 are mostly vocalic but sometimes can be consonantal.
2.3.1. L4 versus L5 and L6:
2.3.1.1. The characteristic that most clearly distinguishes L4 from the other L branches is the treatment of the syllable /CR/ (= voiceless consonant + voiced consonant or son[or]ant) and /[...]/ + voiced consonant, or /’R/ (= /’/ + voiced consonant or son[or]ant), in the final position after an open tonic syllable. In these cases, as in Akhmimic, an anaptyctic vowel [...] /([...])/ follows the voiced consonant at the end of the syllable:
[See PDF version of this article for table.]
Only when /wn/ closes a syllable is the anaptyctic vowel found in all the L texts: [...] (cf. [...]), recognize. Note also that in the spelling of the Mani texts, the anaptyctic vowel after /CR/ is not completely standardized. Listing the lexeme “to hear” in ManiK I, the results are [...] (seventy-four) and [...] (twenty-four). In all comparable instances, the orthography with the anaptyctic vowel predominates.
After a closed tonic syllable /CR/ does not produce any anaptyctic vowel: [...] as opposed to [...], to be equal to. The orthography startre in [...] 4,3 is unique ([...] twenty-five times in ManiK I).
2.3.1.2. The short tonic vowel before the /[...]/ opening a syllable appears in L4 as [...] and in the other L branches as [...]:
[See PDF version of this article for table.]
When /[...]/ closes the syllable, then [...] appears uniformly: [...], to write; [...], husband.
2.3.1.3. The labial spirant at the beginning of words before the tonic vowel becomes in L4 voiced /[...]/ and in the other L branches voiceless [...]:
[See PDF version of this article for table.]
2.3.1.4. With the verb [...], [...], to come, the non-Manichean texts (L5, L6) show nasal gemination: [...], [...].
2.3.2 L4 and L5 Versus L6. In a number of phonological phenomena L4 and L5 stand together as against L6.
2.3.2.1. The alveolar spirant is shown as [...] or [...] when [...] is involved:
[See PDF version of this article for table.]
(a) no evidence for JoL; (b) no evidence for AP. Heid.
2.3.2.2. In the unstressed syllabic finale a significant difference occurs between the two groups. Wherever the old initial j has become syllabic (vocalic) -i through the dropping of the ending [...], [...] is retained at the end of the word in L6 ([...] > [...]); if, on the other hand, another weak consonant has fallen out, then [...] appears in this position. This Edel’s law of finales (Edel, 1961) takes effect only in L6; in L5 and L4 one also finds [...] in the conditions formulated by Edel (see Table 2).
2.3.2.3. In the case of [...], to set, to place [...], the original laryngeal finale in L6 (NagH, AP. Heid.) is retained as the anaptyctic vowel [...]: [...] (likewise OW 3,3). In L4 and L5 (Mani JoL) the anaptyctic vowel (or laryngeal) does not emerge, and the long back vowel is shown differently: ManiHK [...], ManiP [...] (1), JoL [...] (5), [...] (9).
The stable opposition is the presence of the anaptyctic vowel (AP. Heid. and NagH = L6) as against its absence (Mani = L4, JoL = L5). There is no other example of that kind available in Coptic lexicography.
From the above, one should distinguish the syllabic finale /sibilant or labial consonant + long back vowel/, where an original nonlaryngeal consonant has fallen out. The vowel in finale is shown consistently as [...] only in L6 (NagH), whereas otherwise no uniform group formation is recognizable (for texts other than NagH, cf. Kahle, 1954, p. 209):
[...] < [...], to drink:
[...] JoL(9), ManiP (7), ManiHK;
[...] JoL(1), ManiP (4), AP. Heid. NagH
[...] < [...], teaching:
[...] JoL (4), Mani, AP. Heid. (!);
[...] JoL (4), NagH
[...] < dd, say:
[...] JoL (plur.), ManiP (plur.), ManiHK;
[...] JoL (2), ManiP (1), AP. Heid., NagH
[...] < [...], garment:
[...] Mani;
[...] JoL, NagH <[...] Inter 11,38.
2.3.3 L6 Versus L4 and L5. The feature of L6 that most strikingly distinguishes it from the other branches of L is on the morphematic level, especially in the perfect conjugation (both affirmative and relative), where the L6 texts (including Trip.) exhibit [...] before prenominal [...] and the pronominal actor expressions (see 3.2.1.1 and Funk, 1984).
[See PDF version of this article for Table 2.]
3. The Conjugation System
The summary of the system is based on Polotsky (1960) and Funk (1981). Except in special instances (such as the conjunctive), the form cited here is only the third-person masculine singular and the corresponding prenominal form (nom. = before nominal subject). The entire paradigm is not attested in all conjugations.
Unless specifically mentioned, the form is affirmative; neg. = negative. Every basic tense (abbreviated hereafter to “basic”) is followed (if attested) by its satellites, after “And”: circ. = circumstantial, rel. = relative, pret. = preterite, II = second tense. Forms between brackets [. . . ] are reconstituted from very similar forms; zero = no verbal prefix; 1.sg. = first-person singular, 2.m.sg. = second masculine singular, 3.f.sg. = third feminine singular, 1.pl. = first plural, 2.pl. = second plural, 3.pl. = third plural; L = L4 with L5 and L6. AP. Heid. = Schmidt (1904 and 1909); Trip. = Kasser et al. (1973 and 1975a); L6(...) = L6 without AP. Heid. and Trip.
3.1 Bipartite Pattern: Neg. [...].
3.1.1. Present (basic) L [...], nom. L zero. And circ. L [...] (twice L6 Trip. [...], and 1.sg [...], L5, L6 [...], 2.pl. L4, L5 [...], (L5), L6 [...]), nom. L [...] (also sometimes L5, L6 [...], once L6 Trip. [...]); rel. L [...] (also sometimes L [...], once L6 Trip. [...], and 2.pl. L [...]), nom. L4, (L5), L6 [...] (twice L6 Trip. [...]), (L4), L5, (L6) [...]; pret. [...] ((L6) Trip. [...], and 1.sg. L4 [...], L5, L6 [...], 2.pl. L5 [...], L6 [...], no attestation of 2.pl. in L4), nom. [...]; pret. circ. L [...] (1.sg. L6 [...], 2.pl. L5 [...]); pret. rel. L [...] ((L6) Trip. [...], and 1.sg. L4 [...]); II L [...] (1.sg. L4 (L6 Trip. once) [...], L5, L6 (without Trip.) [...], 2.pl. L4 (L5) (L6) [...], (L5), (L6) [...]), nom. L [...].
3.1.2. Future (basic) (L4), L5, L6 [...], L4 [...] (2.pl. L4, L5, (L6) [...], (L6) [...]), nom. L zero... [...]. And circ. (L4), L5, L6 [...], L4 [...] (1.sg. L5 [...], 2.pl. L4 [...]), nom. L6 [...]... [...], L5 [...]… [...]; rel. (L4), L5, L6 [...], (L5), (L6) [...], L4 (L6 once) [...] ((L6) Trip. [...], and 2.pl. L4, L5 [...]), nom. L4, L6 [...]... [...] ((L6) Trip. [...]... [...]), L5 [...]... [...]; pret. (L4), L5, L6 [...], (L4) [[...]] (1.sg. L5, L6 [...], 2.m.sg. L4 [...], 2.pl. L5 [...] or [...]), nom. L4, L5 [...].. . [...]; pret. circ. L6 Trip. once [...], but once also 3.f.sg. [...]...[...]; II L [...], (L4), (L5) [...] (1.sg. L4, (L5) [...], L5, L6 [...], (L4) [...], 3.m.sg. L6 with Trip. [...], L6 Trip. once [...], 1.pl. L [...], 2.pl. L4, L5 [...], L5, L6 [...]), nom. L [...]... [...].
3.2 Tripartite Pattern.
3.2.1 Tenses with special negations (if not II). Independent (sentence) conjugations.
3.2.1.1. Perfect (basic) L [...] (1.sg. L4 [...], L5, L6 [...], also L6(...) [...], 1.pl. L [...], also L6(...) [...], 2.pl. L [...], 3.pl. L .[...], also L6(... ) [...]; cf. Shisha-Halevy, 1977, p. 113), nom. L [...] (but L6 AP. Heid. prefers [...], once also in Trip., also rarely L6(...) [...]); neg. L [...] or [...] (2.pl. L [...]), nom. [...]. And circ. L [...] (1.sg. L4 [...], L5 [...], L6(...) once [...], 1.pl. L [[...]] no attestation, L6(...) once [...], 2.pl. L4 [...], 3.pl. L [...], L6(...) once [...]), nom. L [...] (but L6 APh. [...], perhaps once also in Trip., L6(...) once [...]); neg. L4, L6 [...] or [...] (2.pl. L6 once [...]), nom. L [...]; rel. L4 (and (L6) Trip.) [...], L5, L6 [...], L6 Trip. (and (L6) elsewhere) [...], (also (L6) Trip. [...], once [...]) (1.sg. L4 [...], L6 Trip. [...] or [...], (L6) [...], L5, L6 [...], also L6(...) [...], 2.f.sg. L4 [...], L5 [...], L6(...) [...], 1.pl. L4 (and (L5), L6 Trip.) [...], L5, L6 [...], (L4), (L6) [...], (also (L6) Trip. [...]), also L6(...) [...], 2pl. L4 [...], L5, L6 [...], also L6(...) once [...], 3.pl. L4 (and (L6) Trip.) [...], L5, L6 [...], (L4), (L6) [...] (also (L6) Trip. [...]), also L6(...) [...] (or [...])), nom. L4 (and (L6) Trip.) [...], L5, (L6) [...], L6 Trip. (and (L6) elsewhere) [...], L6 AP. Heid. sometimes [...] but prefers [...] (also (L6) Trip. [...], once each one [...], [...], [...]), also L6(...) [...] (or [...]); neg. L4, L6 [...] or [...] (2.pl. L6 [...]), nom. L6 [...]; pret. L5, L6 [...], nom. L5 [...], L6 AP. Heid. [...]; neg. (3.pl. L6 [...]), nom. L6 [...]; pret. circ. = Irrealis L4, L6 [...] (2.pl. L5 [...]); neg. = Irrealis (1.sg. L5 [...], 3.pl. L4 [...]), nom. L5 [...]; II L [...] (also (L6) Trip. once [...], twice [...], and 1.sg. L4 [...], L5 [...], L6(...) perhaps once [...], 2.pl. L5 [...] (or [...])), nom. L [...].
3.2.1.2. Completive (basic) (affirmative substitute L [...], nom. [...]... [...]); neg. L [...] (also L4 [...], and 2.pl. L5 [...]), nom. L5, L6 [...]. And circ. neg. L4, L6 [...], L5, L6 [...], nom. L [...]; rel. neg. L6 [...] nom. L6 [...]; pret. neg. L5, L6 [...], nom. L6 [...].
3.2.1.3. Aorist (basic) L4, (L5), L6 [...], L5, (L6) [...] (1s.g. L4 [...], 2.pl. L6 [...]), nom. L [...]; neg. L [...] (1.sg. L4 [...]), nom. L [...]. And circ. L4, (L6) [...], L5, (L6) [...] (1.sg. L4 [...], 3.f.sg. L6 [...], 3.pl. L5, (L6) [...]), nom. L4 [...]; neg. L4, [L5, L6] [...] (3.f.sg. L5, L6 [...]), nom. L4 [...]; rel. (L4), [L5], L6 [...] (L6 once [...]), L4, ([L5]), [L6] [...] (1.sg. L4 [...], 3.f.sg. L6 once [...], 3.pl. (L4 once), (L6 once) [...], L4, (L5 once?) L6 [...], L5 (L6) [...], (L6 Trip. [...] once, [...] once), nom. (L4 once?) L5 [...], L4, L6 [...]; neg. (L6) [[...]], L4, L6 [...] (3.pl. L6 once [...], L4, L6 [...], (L6 once) [...]), nom. L4, L6 [...]; pret. (3.pl. L4, L6 [no attestation Trip.] [...], L6 Trip. [...] once); II L4, L6 [...] (3.pl. L4 [...], L6 Trip. [...] once), nom. L4 [...].
3.2.1.4. Futurum energicum (or third future) (basic) L [...] (1.sg. L4, L5 [...], (L5), L6 [...], 2.pl. L6 once [...], once [...], 3.pl. L (without Trip.) [...], L6 Trip. once [...]) nom. L4, L5 [...]; neg. L4, L5, (L6) [...], (L6) [...], (L6 AP. Heid.) [...] (1.sg. L5 [...], L6 AP. Heid. [...] or [...], L6 also [...], 2.pl. L5 [...], 3.pl. L [...] but L4 also [...], [...], [...], L6 AP. Heid. [...]), nom. L4, L5 [...]; rel. (3.pl. L6 Trip. once [...]).
3.2.1.5. Imperative, e.g., L4, L5 ).[...] (L4 no attestation from Polotsky, 1934), L6 once [...], see; or L infinitive; or L [...] + t causative; neg. (L4?), (L6 once) [...], L [...] (L4 once, Polotsky, 1934, p. 5, 20) [...], L6(...) [...].
3.2.1.6. Causative imperative L4, L5, (L6?) [...], nom. L [...]; neg. L5 [...], L6 once [...], once [...], (L4 1.sg. [...], 1.pl. [...], nom. L4 [...], L5, L6 (AP. Heid.) [...], L6 (not AP. Heid.) once [...].
3.2.2 Tenses with neg. [...]. Subordinate (clause) conjugations.
3.2.2.1. Conjunctive (singular 1., 2. m., f., 3. m., f., plural 1., 2., 3.) L4, L5 [...] or [...], L [...] (or (L4), L6 [...], (L4), (L5) [...], L [...] (or L4 [...]), L [...] (or (L4), (L5) [...], (L4 once), (L6 once) [...]), L [...], L [...] (or (L4) [...]), L [...] (or (L4 once), (L5 once) [...], L [...], nom. L [...]-.
3.2.2.2. Future conjunctive L4 [...] (1.pl. L4 [...]), nom. L4 [...].
3.2.2.3. Temporal L [...] (1.pl. L4, L6 [...], (L6 once) [...]), nom. [...].
3.2.2.4. Limitative (“until... “) L4, (L6 Trip. once) [...], (L4), (L6 AP. Heid.) [...], (L6 Trip. [...] twice?), (1.pl. L4 once [...], 2.pl. L4 once [...], 3.pl. L [...] (L4 once) [...]), nom. L (with Trip.) [...] (L6 Trip. once [...]).
3.2.2.5. First conditional L4, L6 [...], (L4), L5, (L6) [...] (1.sg. L4 [...], L5 [...], L6 [...], 2.pl. L4 [...], L5 [...], (L5) [...], L6 [...]), nom. L4 [...], (L4), (L5) [...], (L4 Psalms of Thomas) [...], L5, (L6) [...], L6 [...].
3.2.2.6. Second conditional L6 [[...]], neg. L4 [...] (1.sg. neg. L5 [...], 3.pl. L6 [...], neg. L5, L6 [...]), nom. L6 [...], neg. L5 [...].
3.2.2.7. Causative infinitive L [...], L4, [(L6)] [...], (1.sg. [L4], L5, (L6 AP. Heid. once?) [...], L4 [...], L6 APh. [...], 1.pl. L [...], 2.pl. L6 [...], 3.pl. L [...], L4, (L6) [...], nom. L [...], L4 [...].
PETER NAGEL

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

[Editorial note: [...] indicates use of Coptic text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.]
(CE:A151b-A159b)
LYCOPOLITAN (OR LYCO-DIOSPOLITAN OR SUBAKHMIMIC). The traditional view of the “Lycopolitan dialect” (also called “Subakhmimic”) has become increasingly disputed in recent years, and the question arose if Lycopolitan in fact existed as a distinct dialect.
1. Research History and Problems
1.1 Attempted Definition. A group of Coptic subdialects (or, better, dialects) is usually classed together as Lycopolitan or Lyco- Diospolitan (siglum L or, in earlier years and even sometimes today, A2) or Subakhmimic (more rarely and in former times Asyutic). Each Coptic (sub)dialect is composed of a number of individual texts (see IDIOLECT) and groups of texts whose uniform designation (linguistically and in terms of dialectal geography; see GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL) seems somewhat difficult. The entire group of L (sub)dialects and connected idiolects can justifiably be given a collective description only in terms of the linguistic center stretching from Qaw to Asyut (Lycopolis), with various possible extensions to the south and north, and in terms of the linguistic traits that place L among the dialects of Upper Egypt but that both as a whole and in relation to their distribution cannot be assigned either to Akhmimic (A) or to Sahidic (S). Furthermore, because of diversification and subdivision within L, it cannot be described as a “neutral” dialect.
1.2 Unity or Diversity of L. The original assumption of relative uniformity of L (or A2) has been called into question by the increasing number of texts, some of which await publication. The first textual witness to become known was the Acta Pauli (AP. Heid.), which Carl Schmidt published from the Heidelberg Papyrus Collection (1904 and a further folio in 1909). In 1924 Sir Herbert Thompson published extensive fragments of St. John’s Gospel in a dialect very close to the AP. Heid. but showing some characteristic peculiarities. In the same year, a letter of the Meletian archives (Crum, in Bell, 1924, no. 1921), the sole nonliterary text thus far known in L, was edited and was considered by the editors as belonging to “the later type of Achmimic [Acta Pauli].” Since 1933 the comprehensive corpus of Coptic-Manichaean texts from Madinat Madi has become known and has been published to a great extent. This was followed in 1945 by the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, of which the codices I, X, and XI once again reveal a new variety of Subakhmimic. Publication began in 1956 with the Gospel of Truth (Evangelium Veritatis) from Codex I. While publication of the Nag Hammadi finds has almost been completed, a wide range of Coptic Manichaean texts is still unpublished. Fragments outside the Nag Hammadi library, but belonging to it in content, were published in 1975; the Sahidic parallel version to these is in Nag Hammadi Codex II, 5. In 1978 fragments of the Letter to Philemon and of Hebrews from the Sir Herbert Thompson Collection (now in Cambridge University library) were published (but these are peculiar in their dialect and seem to be wrongly described as Subakhmimic). One text from the Sir Chester Beatty Collection in Dublin (parts of the Gospel of John) and one from the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana in Geneva (parts of the Acta Pauli, or AP. Bod.) are still unpublished. These two texts are not identical either codicologically or linguistically with the texts published by Sir Herbert Thompson and Carl Schmidt.
1.3 Texts and Editions. The L texts now known are almost without exception literary and belong to various categories.
1.3.1. Biblical texts:
JoL = Gospel of John, London manuscript (Thompson, 1924). Provenance: Qaw, fourth century.
JoD = fragments from the Gospel of John (10:18-11:43), Dublin manuscript (unpublished). Transcript: R. Kasser. End of the third century.
Yet a little different from every (sub)dialect of L (i.e. L4, L5, or L6, see below) and not too far from M and V is the dialect of the following fragments of the Pauline Epistles (ed. Bellet, 1978, pp. 45-47; perhaps provenance Suhaj [Dayr al-Abiad], end of fifth century; see Funk, 1986, and Kasser, 1986):
Hbr = fragment of Hebrews (Heb. 5:5-9, 11-14).
Phm = fragment of Philemon (Phlm. 6:15-16).
The language of Hbr and Phm is not taken into account here.
1.3.2. Apocrypha:
AP. Heid. Acta Pauli manuscript in Heidelberg (Schmidt, 1904, 1909). Source: Akhmim antique dealer; perhaps from Edfu, fifth century.
AP. Bod. = Acta Pauli manuscript fragments in Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Geneva (unpublished). Incomplete transcript: R. Kasser. Provenance: east of Nag Hammadi (but not with Nag Hammadi library or near Dishna), fourth century.
1.3.3. Coptic Manichaean texts:
ManiH = Manichaean Homilies (Polotsky, 1934). Provenance: Madinat Madi, in the Fayyum (but perhaps from Lycopolis[?]; see 1.4), fifth century.
ManiK = Manichaean Kephalaia (Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940; Böhlig, 1966). Provenance: same as for ManiH, fourth-fifth century.
ManiP = Manichaean Psalter (Allberry, 1938). Provenance: same as for ManiH, fourth—fifth century.
1.3.4. Coptic Gnostic texts:
With one exception (OW; see below) all these texts are Nag Hammadi texts (NagH), so called because they were discovered east of Nag Hammadi but not in the same place as AP. Bod: Their numeration follows that of the Nag Hammadi codices and the sequence of the individual tractates in each codex:
1,1 = Prayer of the Apostle Paul (Kasser et al., 1975b; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century.
1,2 or EpJac = Apocryphal Letter of James (Malinine et al., 1968; Kirchner, 1977; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century.
1,3 or EV = Gospel of Truth (Malinine et al., 1956 and 1961; Till, 1959; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century.
1,4 or Rheg = Tractate on the Resurrection or Letter of Rheginos (Malinine et al., 1963; Layton, 1979; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century.
1,5 or Trip. = Tripartite Tractate (Kasser et al., 1973a, 1975a, and 1975b; Attridge, 1985). Fourth century. The folio with the Prayer of the Apostle Paul later turned out to be a flyleaf of Codex I and is now reckoned as NagH 1,1. The language of Trip. is taken into account here only with regard to morphology, not orthography and phonemics, as it is clearly a unique phenomenon (wild orthography, oscillation between S and L, a series of syntactical errors that are not only irregularities or exceptions) and is perhaps not the work of someone whose mother tongue was Coptic.
X,1 or Mar = Marsanes (Pearson, 1981). Fourth century.
XI, 1 or Inter = Interpretation of Gnosis, pp. 1-32. Copied by W.-P. Funk. Fourth century.
XI, 2 or Exp = Valentinian Exposition, pp. 33-39. Copied by W.-P. Funk. Fourth century.
Appendix = five Valentinian prayers, pp. 40-44.
RhInEx = collective designation for Rheg, Inter, and Exp (NagH I, 4-XI,1.2.).
OW = On the Origin of the World (Oeyen, 1975). Provenance: unknown. According to Oeyen (p. 134) the London fragment shows an older stage in the development of the text than the Sahidic version of NagH 11,5, but this does not allow one to draw any direct conclusions as to the age of the manuscript, which Kenyon (in Crum, 1905, no. 522) puts in the fourth century.
1.3.5. Nonliterary texts:
Mel = Letter of the Meletian Archive, no. 1921 (Crum, in Bell, 1924, pp. 94-97). Provenance: antique trade; approx. 330-340 AD.
Note that there is still a number of texts that are closely related linguistically to the L texts but use the grapheme [...] for /x/; for this reason, they were previously—and wrongly—described as “Akhmimic” or “Akhmimic with Sahidic influences” because they use this [...] only in part, as A does. These preliminary stages (to some extent) in the development of L (Kasser, 1979 and 1982a) are dealt with under DIALECT i (with its subdialects, especially i7; see also Funk, 1987).
1.4 Date, Place of Discovery, and Place of Origin. The L texts for the most part date from the fourth and fifth centuries (Nag Hammadi and JoL, fourth century; ManiK and ManiP, fourth-fifth centuries; ManiH and AP. Heid., fifth century). On the other hand, the unpublished Gospel of John in Dublin (JoD) seems to be much earlier, even from the end of the third century. It is interesting to see that the witnesses of L are written on papyrus, whereas the fragments with the Pauline Epistles (Hbr and Phm), which are to be excluded from L for linguistic reasons, are written on parchment.
In some cases (Nag Hammadi and Mani texts, and JoL), the place of discovery is certain, but Crum’s dictum is to be kept in mind: “Place of finding is not necessarily place of origin.” The Mani texts were discovered in Madinat Madi, a place where the L-dialect never had been spoken. Rather, the place of origin of the Coptic Manichaean texts seems to have been Lycopolis (Asyut). For a long time it was regarded as a hiding place for the Manichaean “heresy” (Schmidt and Polotsky, 1933, pp. 12-14). In the case of JoL, there is no compelling reason why the place of discovery should not be considered the same as the place of origin (Qaw/Antaiopolis). As the Nag Hammadi Library resulted from the purposeful collection of various texts, the place of origin of the L texts of Nag Hammadi is not guaranteed. As they, however, represent a different type of L from Mani and JoL, they should be placed further south.
After the fifth century no textual witness of L is attested, and one may conclude that by that time L had gone out of use as a literary language.
1.5. Descriptions of Dialect and Geographical Location. The alternating descriptions of “dialect” L throw light on the history of the problem of L and on Coptic dialectology as a whole. Carl Schmidt, the editor of AP. Heid., characterized the dialect of this manuscript as “a dialect related to the Akhmimic texts.” Its consonants are consistently identical with those of the Sahidic, while the vowels show the peculiarities of Akhmimic (Schmidt, 1904, p. 14). Rosch (1909) interpreted this observation to the effect that the AP. Heid. represented the transitional stage from the (older) Akhmimic to the (later) Sahidic (“late” or “new” Akhmimic; similarly, Crum, in Bell, 1924, p. 94, wrote of “the younger type of Achmimic” with regard to the Meletian letter no. 1921). H. Thompson grouped the dialects of AP. Heid. and JoL under the designation “sub-achmimic,” which established itself subsequently (JoL, p. xx). He subscribed to Schmidt’s view that Subakhmimic stood between Akhmimic and Sahidic, but he raised the fundamental question whether that intermediate position should be interpreted in terms of chronology or dialectal geography. Chaîne (1934) preferred the geographical view, describing the dialect as “Assiutic” (Asyutic, siglum A2). The view that Akhmimic was replaced by Sahidic by way of Subakhmimic had already been dismissed by Till (1928, p. 3), who said that A, A2, and S had “basically come into being independently of each other… and [had been] spoken at an earlier period simultaneously, and alongside each other, in various districts of Upper Egypt.” Nevertheless, the term “Subakhmimic” was retained (Till, passim; Schmidt and Polotsky, 1933; Worrell, 1934; Kahle, 1954; and even Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. 1a).
Worrell (1934, pp. 63-74, map p. 65, region V), assumed that the region of Pbow in the south as far as the al-Ashmunayn-Antinoe line in the north was the area in which A and A2 spread, but rejected the idea of a more circumscribed localization. Kahle (1954, pp. 206ff.) placed A2 between Akhmimic and MESOKEMIC, or Middle Egyptian, and considered the region from Abydos to al-Ashmunayn to be the original area in which A2 spread (basically in agreement with Worrell). He envisaged for the first time a grouping within A2 on a broader textual basis, leading to three main groups: (1) JoL, AP. Heid, Mel, OW (Kahle partly other sigla: OW = BM522; Mel = J. & C. 1921); (2) the Mani texts; and (3) the Nag Hammadi texts (still unpublished at the time and not taken further into account by Kahle). A2-Mani was, according to him, characterized by Akhmimic influences, while A2-AP. Heid. and A2-JoL represented “much more truly the ancient Subachmimic” (p. 219). Polotsky (in Schmidt and Polotsky, 1933, p. 11) had already noted that the Manichaean A2 was closest to the Akhmimic and also drew attention to agreements of Mani-JoL against AP. Heid. These observations were not taken into account by Kahle. Although Kahle’s first main group cannot stand up to scrutiny, one is nevertheless indebted to him for many fine individual observations on A2.
According to Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. 1a, p. 4, sec. 5), A2 was spoken in a region stretching from Akhmim-Eshqaw in the south to al-Ashmunayn-Antinoe in the north with Asyut (Lycopolis) as center. As against Kable, it may be regarded as a backward step that A2 is treated by Vergote as a dialectal unity. From Worrell to Vergote, there is agreement that the al-Ashmunayn-Antinoe line is the northern frontier while the frontier for expansion southward remains open, so to speak.
Recognition that A2 is an independent “dialect” in relation to A and S is contradictory to the still rather widely current description of the dialect as “Subakhmimic,” which, like the siglum A2, tends to lead one to assume a subdialect or collateral dialect of Akhmimic, or A, even if the terminology is only used conventionally. Hence, in a series of publications since 1972, Kasser has proposed instead of “Subakhmimic” the dialectal designation “Lycopolitan” (L), to correspond to the linguistic center of this dialect, or, more exactly, of an important branch of this dialect (see especially Kasser, 1982b and 1984). This description adapts a variant of Chaîne’s “Assiutic” and has the advantage that the siglum consists of just one sign, corresponding to the signs of the other main dialects of Coptic. For a rather long time, various indices were used to designate the individual branches or types of L. Since 1986, however, a general agreement has been reached among Coptologists. Now numerical indices are preferred: thus, L4 rather than L-Mani, L5 rather than L-JoL, L6 rather than L-NagH (see also LYCO-DIOSPOLITAN).
Far more important is the question of the particular type of L to which the textual witnesses can be allotted, the more so since practically every manuscript exhibits peculiarities and even inconsistencies, as L in fact is not a thoroughly standardized dialect in any of its branches. The individual groups will be denoted below in accordance with their main characteristics.
1.6 Means of Dialectal Subdivision. Like the Coptic dialects in general, the individual representatives and branches of L (as an L group) are also mainly distinguished from each other phonetically (insofar as this can be recognized from the orthography) and in specific areas of morphology. Except for Funk (1985), where some primary elements of the kind are already shown, there have been until now no available investigations for differences in the lexical and syntactical field (see, however, DIALECTS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC and AKHMIMIC). These L branches are designated as follows:
L4 (or L-Mani) (all Mani texts)
L5 (or L-JoL) (JoL, JoD and AP. Bod.)
L6 (or L-NagH) (all Nag Hammadi L texts, and also AP. Heid)
2. The Phonemic Inventory of Lycopolitan
As usual, consonants and vowels will be treated separately.
2.1 Consonants. The L consonantal phonemes and graphemes (according to Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. 1a, p. 13) are those of most Coptic dialects and therefore also of S, M, W, V, and F (apart from F7) (see Table 1). There are sixteen graphemes matching the seventeen consonantal phonemes of Lycopolitan. The laryngeal stop phoneme /’/ has no sign of its own but is expressed, or is recognizable, by the break in the vowels (e.g., [...], to place him or it), as in S (with pS) and also A, as in most of the F branches.
The use of some of these consonants, especially [...] and [...], is indicative of a difference within the L dialect (see 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2.1).
2.2 Vowels. A comprehensive description of the vowel phonemes of Lycopolitan can be found in Vergote, 1973-1983 (Vol. la, p. 41). The vowel indicators of Lycopolitan are important because they often show and clarify relationships with A and deviations from, on the one hand, M, F, etc. and, on the other, S, B, etc. (see Till, 1961, pp. 8-11; Kasser 1982b, p. 58) and because they emphasize differences within L and so are indispensable in defining L4, L5, and L6, as the case may be.
[See PDF version of this article for TABLE 1. Consonantal Phonemes and Graphemes]
2.3 Indicators of Differences Within Dialect L. These differential markers between L4, L5, and L6 are mostly vocalic but sometimes can be consonantal.
2.3.1. L4 versus L5 and L6:
2.3.1.1. The characteristic that most clearly distinguishes L4 from the other L branches is the treatment of the syllable /CR/ (= voiceless consonant + voiced consonant or son[or]ant) and /[...]/ + voiced consonant, or /’R/ (= /’/ + voiced consonant or son[or]ant), in the final position after an open tonic syllable. In these cases, as in Akhmimic, an anaptyctic vowel [...] /([...])/ follows the voiced consonant at the end of the syllable:
[See PDF version of this article for table.]
Only when /wn/ closes a syllable is the anaptyctic vowel found in all the L texts: [...] (cf. [...]), recognize. Note also that in the spelling of the Mani texts, the anaptyctic vowel after /CR/ is not completely standardized. Listing the lexeme “to hear” in ManiK I, the results are [...] (seventy-four) and [...] (twenty-four). In all comparable instances, the orthography with the anaptyctic vowel predominates.
After a closed tonic syllable /CR/ does not produce any anaptyctic vowel: [...] as opposed to [...], to be equal to. The orthography startre in [...] 4,3 is unique ([...] twenty-five times in ManiK I).
2.3.1.2. The short tonic vowel before the /[...]/ opening a syllable appears in L4 as [...] and in the other L branches as [...]:
[See PDF version of this article for table.]
When /[...]/ closes the syllable, then [...] appears uniformly: [...], to write; [...], husband.
2.3.1.3. The labial spirant at the beginning of words before the tonic vowel becomes in L4 voiced /[...]/ and in the other L branches voiceless [...]:
[See PDF version of this article for table.]
2.3.1.4. With the verb [...], [...], to come, the non-Manichean texts (L5, L6) show nasal gemination: [...], [...].
2.3.2 L4 and L5 Versus L6. In a number of phonological phenomena L4 and L5 stand together as against L6.
2.3.2.1. The alveolar spirant is shown as [...] or [...] when [...] is involved:
[See PDF version of this article for table.]
(a) no evidence for JoL; (b) no evidence for AP. Heid.
2.3.2.2. In the unstressed syllabic finale a significant difference occurs between the two groups. Wherever the old initial j has become syllabic (vocalic) -i through the dropping of the ending [...], [...] is retained at the end of the word in L6 ([...] > [...]); if, on the other hand, another weak consonant has fallen out, then [...] appears in this position. This Edel’s law of finales (Edel, 1961) takes effect only in L6; in L5 and L4 one also finds [...] in the conditions formulated by Edel (see Table 2).
2.3.2.3. In the case of [...], to set, to place [...], the original laryngeal finale in L6 (NagH, AP. Heid.) is retained as the anaptyctic vowel [...]: [...] (likewise OW 3,3). In L4 and L5 (Mani JoL) the anaptyctic vowel (or laryngeal) does not emerge, and the long back vowel is shown differently: ManiHK [...], ManiP [...] (1), JoL [...] (5), [...] (9).
The stable opposition is the presence of the anaptyctic vowel (AP. Heid. and NagH = L6) as against its absence (Mani = L4, JoL = L5). There is no other example of that kind available in Coptic lexicography.
From the above, one should distinguish the syllabic finale /sibilant or labial consonant + long back vowel/, where an original nonlaryngeal consonant has fallen out. The vowel in finale is shown consistently as [...] only in L6 (NagH), whereas otherwise no uniform group formation is recognizable (for texts other than NagH, cf. Kahle, 1954, p. 209):
[...] < [...], to drink:
[...] JoL(9), ManiP (7), ManiHK;
[...] JoL(1), ManiP (4), AP. Heid. NagH
[...] < [...], teaching:
[...] JoL (4), Mani, AP. Heid. (!);
[...] JoL (4), NagH
[...] < dd, say:
[...] JoL (plur.), ManiP (plur.), ManiHK;
[...] JoL (2), ManiP (1), AP. Heid., NagH
[...] < [...], garment:
[...] Mani;
[...] JoL, NagH